Skip to main content
2:00 pm
design? >> thank you commissioner. jessie band again. this is an important discussion. we look to getting feedback from you. as craig mentioned we're in 2.0 of the design. we are taking the consideration from the cac. i believe we have been to over a hundred community meetings between the cac and neighborhood and board meetings et cetera. we are trying to take that feedback from the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over this site and the state lands commission and putting it into a new version of the site plan which also includes -- there was a reference to efforts to accommodate the east berth for cruise use. i would say it's not a terminal like people
2:01 pm
are used to thinking about like the one that just opened. more of a berkt that is that for use when the others are full so it's a tertiary or fourth berth and a port of call, and not a full home port but we are taking that into consideration which has some effects on the overall site plan. the bottom line is we expect to have a higher level of design that's associated with the next site plan so you will begin to see more detail, more architectural detail. we will certainly have a physical model and have many more perspectives from different parts of the site as well as into the site from various locations. all of that will occur at the end of april is our target for rolling out that next iteration of the site plan as well as a higher level of design and we're hoping to
2:02 pm
be back actually at this commission in april along with being at the port commission and the cac. >> thank you. and i wanted to ask a series of transportation questions and i don't know who that is best for. so we got this diagram with the yellow blue. i know at this point we're in a conceptual phase but if you could go over some of the larger challenges of the site? obviously accommodating the different modes. is there anything about the site that will require a lot of attention to try and figure out? and my second question is around muni light rail so if there are any performance or operating suggestions being provided about light rail because my own experience along that side it's
2:03 pm
quite slow. >> i would like to introduce erin miller and that give some perspective. >> thank you. >> jennifer mentioned at the beginning of the meeting this afternoon we are working on a assessment that is taking into account not only this project but all of the development we are anticipating seeing along the waterfront, particularly eastern front in the area and we are beginning to where we expect to see transportation impacts and help us to begin to identify in our own system as well as the regional system where there maybe short falls as the projects come on line. we are working in an up and down manner zooming into the specific
2:04 pm
projects working with the cac for piers 30-32 as they dig more deeply into the specifics of their site so we have been meeting with the transportation subcommittee of that cac and we are rounding out some of the potential solutions. this assessment will begin to identify possible solutions, things that we think will help to support the transportation system at these different locations. we can't -- we don't finalize them through the assessment but they are able to inform the environmental review so there are ideas that we come up could potentially be mitigation and a proposal as we work through those so we're not at a super high level of detail. we are aware our light rail is impacted here and we have a lot
2:05 pm
of transportation improvements on the board that are coming on line in the next 10-15 years that will help the problems that you see today and then we will continue to work with these folks to identify more solutions that are specific to the area. things as simple as tracks and signal improvements can support the future increase in activity on the waterfront. one thing i can say about this site that we're interested in is the fact that we actually think you don't have to take muni to get to this site so it's a great opportunity. you're within a walking distance of bart, cal train and this is a transit rich location and it's in a wonderful walkable part of the city so we hope to be able through the assessment to help focus people
2:06 pm
to arrive there by foot, by bike, by regional transit. relating to the parking question too i just would bring up we are as well looking at a parking strategy for this whole area and we are focusing specifically on trying to identify where parking resources are that are outside of this location and get people out of their cars instead of into the area circulating looking for parking and impacting the transit and parking in those areas. >> thank you. i think it was said that the assessment will come to this commission and i think this is important for looking at this project and others upcoming. thank you. >> absolutely we would love to come and let you know we are making a presentation about this to our own board next tuesday. >> so overall on this project i am looking forward to continued
2:07 pm
conversation much i think whether this next level of design comes out in april there can be more questions answered, more specifics, a lot more discussion on the major issues brought up. >> commissioner hillis. >> so thank you very much for the presentation. i mean i take from a planning perspective this is definitely in the right space for an arena the downtown core. i echo the comments and it's walkable and when you go to the giants park it's too far and this closer to downtown i think is great and i think people will walk and the transit impacts won't be as great as we otherwise think. i mean i have to admit i was skeptical originally when it was proposed that the arena was going to be on the water and with state land issues and i think the design really responded to that and
2:08 pm
it's a great design for the location and we're obviously not putting an arena anywhere and i think being off the embarcadero works well. [inaudible]. the retail program which i agree with commissioner comments prior to this what that feels and looks like and hopefully push back on state lands and when you say regional serving -- [inaudible] restaurant could be regional serving. so hopefully the retail will be kind of neighborhood and retail serving. the parking that's proposed, the 630 spots. how is that -- why was that proposed at that level ? it's obviously small to the
2:09 pm
parking around the giant's ballpark. >> yeah. jessie blat again commissioner. the parking obviously is it's a lot less than the warriors have at oracle and i wanted to make one point on that that we did do a survey of parking use during the season and we found that the highest point of the use of the oracle parking lot was 5,000 cars and when you think about oracle those that know the site pretty much capture every car that comes to a game or event and there is no where else to park there and it's interesting to think about that compared to our site you have more than bart. you have cal train and the walkablity of the site and muni
2:10 pm
and walking. as it relates to our parking the 630 spaces that we are currently proposing serves a mix of players, personnel that's necessary for both the warrior's operation as well as the arena operation as well as some ticket holders for the events. >> certainly the design -- i mean how that works with the retail and open space does a great job in minimizing the impact of the parking. just on the open space too there wasn't a lot of this in the presentation and i know there was talk of making it active 24 hours or 12 hours especially on non game days. it would be nice to see more programmatic details how that open space is
2:11 pm
activated and take the south beach park versus rincon park and i prefer south beach because there is more around it even when the giants aren't there and it's active when they're not there, so and this is obviously bigger and on the water so getting more detail would be helpful. just on process we hear a lot this is being fast tracked. it seems like we have been talking about it a long time. if it was fast tracked it might have been approved so far but what is the process from here on out and i know this is subject to change but just a general idea? >> commissioners in large part to be responsive to the design considerations and the conversations with stakeholders the project sponsors are taking more time in doing the design. as a result the calendar has
2:12 pm
moved accordingly. i think what is important to emphasize is we are not trying to truncate the process. we are currently looking at a schedule that would have draft eir published in the late fall, probably november, with then proper consideration for comments and hearings that projects us being back before the full planning commission in april 2013 for consideration of the eir. during that process we are working redefining design, coming up with some solutions and opportunities through the transportation assessment, bringing a term sheet before the port commission and the board of supervisors over the summer, probably in june and july, and really using the period of 2013 to continue to work with the
2:13 pm
public and the cac and other stakeholders around the program at the facility, and the state legislation that was just introduced by assembly member king would move through this legislative year. >> thank you. >> i want to thank the commissioners and there are more that chimed in and asking very good questions thus far and i realize this is informal only. it's early stage so it's important not to get too much into it and pass judgment at this time. as some of you know i had a long association with san francisco's waterfront and fisherman's wharf in particular and i am happy to hear that fisherman's wharf will not be duplicated. fisherman's wharf as you know is the number two destination next to disneyland in california and we seem to do a good job at making the people
2:14 pm
happy and generating tax dollars and the arena will bring in new tax dollars from a new sector of san francisco and entertaining folks of san francisco. in regard to the cruise ship -- i assume they're celebratory ships or back up cruise ship capacity and for fleet week? >> yeah, we are currently planning that this berth could accommodate fleet week and other ships. the eastern edge of this pier as you probably know commissioner from your time on the port commission has an advantage in it doesn't require as much consistent dredging and lower cost from a operational standpoint and options like that and one of the reasons we tried to make it work under the plan.
2:15 pm
>> okay. i imagine the port is negotiating with you about the number of days, maximum, minimum? >> yes. we're in those conversations as we speak. >> i think it's a terribly transit rich area between bart, muni and streetcar and walkablity and my last comment on this with my time at the port this is one of a few piers that if we want to see them rehab and want the questions and conversations to stop what about the pier and why is it falling into the bay and why aren't you doing something about it? this is a public private opportunity and they don't come around everyday and one that we need to take advantage of it and i am looking forward to seeing the design and i am in support. commissioner moore. >> thank you for the
2:16 pm
presentation. this is happening all very quickly. i acknowledge the questions and the commission and psychologically interesting to start with the compelling image and hope it falls in place and you in the middle and i would like to propose a second challenge to you. i would like to ask you at what scale are you trying to design a model? i hope it's a working model so when people ask you about the features and that being the bridge, that being the waterfront and the promenade and all the way to the ferry building and to the embarcadero and the buildings on the other side that people can see you move the model around and respond to questions why you're doing what you're doing. the question is what scale are you doing your model in and is it a working model? >> we are working with two means of visualizing the project, the physical model and digital
2:17 pm
models. the ones that we currently have in house with our partners show significant parts of san francisco, not just the immediate context so for us it's more important being able to show another context that you understand the building in relation to the city at large and not just the immediate adjacent properties. in the digital model it will be easier to do that and set up solar -- to get actual sun angles. we currently have two models we're working with at different scales. i wouldn't want to answer the exact scale but your point is well taken and big enough so you can get a picture of it and i think the people asking for a model are quite correct. >> historically we used a model scope and eye level into the model. >> yes. >> and like an antiquated technology but it has a lot of persuasion and it's eye level
2:18 pm
and digital model and depending whether you're 7 feet or 5 feet tall standing on the street or across the street you want to understand height i think it's where the rubber will hit the road and i will live it at that and the work is interesting and i am looking forward to it evolve and respond to the questions at hand. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> just a final comments. i see this as a normal track. we often on the slow track but i don't think there is conflict between expediting a project and allowing for a comprehensive complete open dialogue with the public and following all the necessary steps so they're not mutually exclusive. i did have a question on transportation or i think that what i would
2:19 pm
suggest is that -- i am sure you're doing this. do your analysis at the worse possible situation where you have 44,000 going to a giant's game and 18,000 for the arena and that will happen frequently more so with concerts and giants games between the other because there isn't much overlap. if the warriors make the playoffs there will be a little bit. i think you have a good record with the transit split and analyzing what the giants have and more favor to that because you're so close to market street and another admonination from cars from the east bay and look at lot 330. i know you plan hotel, retail and housing there and some supportive parking but if there is any space to accommodate cars coming off the bridge. they get out of the car. they walk and right on the bridge and out of
2:20 pm
the city which they make go to fisherman's wharf too of course but often they're going just drive out and not a traffic problem, and the final thing was i noticed there are practice courts next to the arena. i assume that's a practice facility for the warriors and they would relocate the headquarters here. is that correct? i think that is important and they're playing the games and headquartered here and not happened in the past and that is important. thank you. >> any additional comment, questions? okay. thank you: do you guys want to take a break ? . let's keep going. >> commissioners that will place you under the two items that you pulled off of consent. first
2:21 pm
of item four at 225 30th street conditional use authorization. commissioners if i may briefly this will be michelle's last hearing before you. she has decided to leave the planning department and move back east so it's with much regret they introduce michelle. >> thank you jonas. good afternoon commissioners. i am michelle from the planning department. this a conditional use authorization by at&t located at 225 30th street. the request is install up to [inaudible] on the roof top building and residential care facility. the facility -- because of the institutional nature is proposed on a location preference one site. staff is submitting the staff report
2:22 pm
staff has received two emails and a call oppose the project based on necessity, health concerns and design concerns. staff is proposing -- is recommending approval with conditions. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon commissioners i am teddy [inaudible] and from at&t and i am here with the firm that conductedded radio frequency testing at this location and the third party review that was required. we are seeking your approval to install this facility consisted of nine panels that will be on the roof top of the building with transparent blinders to
2:23 pm
integrate this into the building. this is a preferred location and with the guidelines. the site contains a three story institutional building known as on lock day services that provides day time residential care. the site is necessary to coverage and capacity in the area which are served by the muni rail line and the 24 and 36 muni bus lines. i would like to thank the department staff for their time and support in directing and design and ensure this site is compatible with the neighborhood and the surrounding area. i am available to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. opening up for public comment. i have some speaker cards. (calling speaker names). >> good afternoon. steven strong. i am here to pose the
2:24 pm
installation of the proposed antennas from at&t and increasing coverage and increasing capacity. i live in the immediate neighborhood. the back of my property -- i can see the on lock facility. i am an at&t customer. i have been for 15 years. i also work from home. i use anywhere from three to 7,000 minutes of voice on at&t every month. i am also a heavy data user. i have been in the neighborhood for eight and a half years. there is no coverage problem. we never have outages. i have documentation they will leave that i took of tests with my phone and ipad from my location but the
2:25 pm
location on dolores and 30th street. the location of 30th and chenery and look readings at church and 30th. i think what you will see in the results i am providing you -- i mean in most cases -- not only do i have interruption of services the speeds are faster from comcast fiber connection at home. they operate i believe full coverage. that's the state of the art latest greatest technology at&t is using and it's performing at maximum speeds. it's the best available in the neighborhood so i do not understand and do not agree with the fact that we have a coverage problem or capacity problem. a couple of other things i would like to point out in the report that was filed on page 44 you will notice that one
2:26 pm
of the primary basis for the third party study i believe was a simpling of data provided by at&t. that only covered a 24 hour period of one day. hardly a representative sample when i can certainly tell you from seven in the morning to the evening including the peak hours at&t refers to there are no issues so i don't see how on earth it benefits the community or the residents on the border of the area benefit at all. i also have a number of documents that i will leave behind from a website and this shows the towers 2 miles from the site and the antennas installed and the last thing is at&t is the experts in the alternative sites but they evaluated more than 100 potential alternative sites in the report. not a single one
2:27 pm
of those sits to the west -- >> thank you. >> or to the south of the proposed location. >> thank you for your time. >> where 2/3s are proposing to go. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for your time. i am michelle carter and live in the neighborhood. my property abutting the back of the on lock property and i don't think this complies with the planning code. first of all i don't think it's desirable. it -- it says it's supposed to be located to minimize the visibility and intrusion into visittas and integrity and they are doing this for sight and for the museum and it
2:28 pm
will be directly over that and the church. i think it will have a negative impact of the esthetics of the neighborhood. i am also a at&t customer. i don't think it's necessary. i take the buses and the j church. i travel on public transportation. i work from home on various days. i go around the neighborhood and bernal heights and no valley and the excelsior and i check email and i never had problems with any of the coverage. i am also concerned there is no addressing the question of the gaps they're fixing are significant. they indicate there are gaps in college but the case law states and san francisco more than gaps. they have to be truly significant gaps and based on my experience and the fact they apparently looked at a 24 hour period i don't know there has been showing that the gaps they're supposedly trying to fill are in fact significant
2:29 pm
gaps as required and i know that the health issues aren't a factor. i mention that in the email and that really isn't the basis of the concern but i am concerned about but i am more concerned about the esthetics and they're not entitled to put this up there and they have to get approval because these issues need to be addressed and i ask that the commissioners reconsider your opinion and decision to grant them their request. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i have one more thing if you look at the map where the towers are that was mentioned by the preefses speaker you will see they're proposing to put the antennas on the three sides of

tv
[untitled]
February 28, 2013 2:00pm-2:30pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY At&t 9, San Francisco 5, Michelle 3, Oracle 3, Cal 2, Us 2, The City 2, Jennifer 1, Steven 1, Hillis 1, Moore 1, Antonini 1, Jessie 1, Rincon 1, Erin Miller 1, Jonas 1, Eir 1, Bart 1, At&t Located 1, California 1
Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color